Sunday, 13 July 2014

The imperious missionaries of liberalism
have no respect for the diversity of India’s belief systems and have taken it
upon themselves to reform everything they perceive as outdated and incorrect.

Do we want to create a world in which everyone thinks
alike? A world in which there is no space for divergence of views or foolish
people? I write this after witnessing poor Rahul Easwar, one of the young
hereditary priests of Sabarimala, being flagellated on television for the nth
time on January 7, 2013, for allowing the presiding deity of his temple to shun
the company of female devotees.

The media’s job is first and foremost to inform and not
browbeat people to “reform.” TV news programmes in particular have come to
resemble inquisitions or kangaroo courts with anchors and their hand-picked
panellists flagellating those with politically incorrect views, issuingdiktatson everything from political views to religious practices and rituals, and even
the conduct of gods and goddesses.

Intolerant

Just as our colonial rulers with their faith in the
superiority of their monotheistic faith, despised Hindu religious practices,
with their millions of gods and goddesses, our modern day missionaries can’t
stand the temperamental nuances of our diverse deities. They have no problem in
accepting that women are barred inside friaries meant to house Catholic priests
who have taken a vow of celibacy. But they can’t stomach the idea of a male
deity who has likewise vowed eternal celibacy avoiding the company of women.
They take it upon themselves to cure this kink because in their moral universe
with its borrowed vocabulary, this amounts to misogyny and gender
discrimination!

Rahul Easwar has asked each television anchor who has
grilled him over the years how would they deal with all those temples which
only allow female devotees, where the presiding goddess forbids men’s entry.
Would they likewise force “women only” temples to open their doors to men? Not
one has ever condescended to answer this simple question; nor did any of the
anchors tone down their aggression or hostility towards Rahul’s intelligent
defence of his faith and his Ishta dev.

Following in the footsteps of our British rulers, who
despite their disdain for our gods and goddesses, took away shiploads of
priceless ancient idols to display as art objects in their museums and living
rooms, so also our westernised elites have taken to displaying paintings,
bronze and stone carved idols of diverse gods and goddesses as decoration
pieces in their homes as proof of their aesthetic lifestyle. But their disdain
for those who treat them as objects of worship remains as ferocious as that of
our colonial rulers.

Respect for differences

If that were not the case, they would have no difficulty
in appreciating that Hindu divinities are not unknowable, distant entities.
They have distinct personalities, character traits, likes, dislikes. Even in
matters of food, floral offerings, puja ritual, each deity has
his or her preferences. If you don’t respect their unique temperaments, you are
free not to worship them and choose the devata or devi that
suits your taste.

Even the most illiberal among Indians do not insist on
uniformity of rituals or modes of worship. They let each faith group, each sect
decide for itself how to define their relationship to their chosen deity, what
foods to offer her, what modes of worship they think appropriate to express
their devotion and how they interpret her likes or dislikes. This spontaneous,
mutual respect for differences in ways of being, ways of worship, singing,
dancing, clothing, cooking and so on, is what enabled the rich diversity of
India to survive through millennia.

But our self-proclaimed modern liberals can’t deal with
these lived forms of diversity. They can only relish in museumised versions
such as folk dances on Republic Day or as consumer goods. For example,
possessing a collection of Kanjeevaram, Ikat, Chanderi or Patola saris,
Madhubani and Worli paintings, Moradabad brassware, wood carvings from Kashmir,
Tanjore paintings, Rajasthani miniatures, etc. is a fashion statement. But the
moral universe of those who create these diverse art objects is unacceptable.
It is assumed that they all need a dose of reform to cleanse them of antiquated
beliefs and values.

For engagement

I won’t be surprised if tomorrow someone decided to
reform the food habits of our gods and goddesses saying, for example,
that modak and laddoo are both high
cholesterol, high calorie food items. They encourage devotees to have pot
bellies. Therefore, they should be banned in favour of sugar-free diet
chocolates!

It is time the imperious missionaries of “liberalism”
understand that our temples are not meant to be tourist centres — where entry
must be free for all. Most of our traditional temples are run by specific sects
for the devotees of that particular deity. If you don’t like the values of that
sect, if the preferences of that particular deity are offensive to you, just
avoid going to that temple. There are lakhs of others to choose from.

If I walked into the homes of our self-appointed
reformers and insisted that they change their lifestyles and food habits, I’d
be shown the door and asked to mind my own business. What gives these
non-believers the right to dictate to Lord Sabarimala how he should live and
act in his own abode or dictate terms to harmless little sects among Hindus who
prefer to indulge in the whims and wishes of their chosen deities?

Young Rahul Easwar has been pleading for respectful
engagement with faith leaders in order to bring about changes in allegedly
outmoded customary practices and cultural values. In the Hindu faiths, nothing
is written in stone. Devotees have the right to dictate their deities to change
with changing times. But they can’t be ordered around by those who only have
contempt for them. They cannot be bullied into surrendering their unique being and become
colourless and soulless robotic creatures that yield to every new wave of
political fashion we import from our intellectual mentors in distant lands.